Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I fully expect Labour will be way less dogmatic when negotiating the next round of the TCA in 2025, bringing us much more in the EU sphere without quite being in the single market. This will make a massive difference to our economy vs today. They have cards close to the chest and all that, but that seems the most likely outcome.Stevo_666 said:
That's a big 'if' given who you are pinning your hopes on.super_davo said:The triple lock is getting a lot of attention at the moment because it's not affordable when the economy isn't functioning.
If Labour can get the economy working so it becomes affordable again then a goal of standards of welfare matching European peers is laudable.
However it does smack of "just get elected any way you can" for Labour, and you worry it will tie their hands.
That said, when you talk about 'standards of welfare matching European peers', it looks like we are in the middle of this sample:
https://cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-saving/best-welfare-country/
However, those at the top seem to realise that their systems are unaffordable, for example recent French moves to increase the pension age. Maybe their economy 'isn't working'?0 -
I'd be interested to understand what you mean by 'more in the EU sphere without quite being in the single market' and how you think that will make a massive difference.super_davo said:
I fully expect Labour will be way less dogmatic when negotiating the next round of the TCA in 2025, bringing us much more in the EU sphere without quite being in the single market. This will make a massive difference to our economy vs today. They have cards close to the chest and all that, but that seems the most likely outcome.Stevo_666 said:
That's a big 'if' given who you are pinning your hopes on.super_davo said:The triple lock is getting a lot of attention at the moment because it's not affordable when the economy isn't functioning.
If Labour can get the economy working so it becomes affordable again then a goal of standards of welfare matching European peers is laudable.
However it does smack of "just get elected any way you can" for Labour, and you worry it will tie their hands.
That said, when you talk about 'standards of welfare matching European peers', it looks like we are in the middle of this sample:
https://cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-saving/best-welfare-country/
However, those at the top seem to realise that their systems are unaffordable, for example recent French moves to increase the pension age. Maybe their economy 'isn't working'?
Also interesting that Labour are playing their cards close to their chest. If moving back into the EU sphere was a clear vote winner, why don't Labour just make it an explicit part of their policy?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't know exactly, because they aren't talking about it. I do know there will be vetinary certification, artists touring exemptions, because that's been declared, and I would fully expect other sector by sector stuff too. If it goes as far as FS equivalence and the ability for lorry drivers to move freely then its very easy to see how that resolves some of the brakes on us today.
Why cards to the chest? There are theories about not wanting to alienate leavers in former red wall seats they are trying to win back but I think the truth is more prosaic - the debate tends to be toxic and they know their heads will be plastered on the Mail and the Express with "TRYING TO DESTROY YOUR BREXIT" as the headline. They are being marshalled very carefully to "just win the election" and if they think there will be potential negative impacts from going down a particular route, they won't do it.0 -
Best to release that stuff now and get it out of the way now rather than in a manifesto just before an election. I'd think anyway. The alternative is to hide it away, release after the election and be caught as no better than the previous lot.super_davo said:I don't know exactly, because they aren't talking about it. I do know there will be vetinary certification, artists touring exemptions, because that's been declared, and I would fully expect other sector by sector stuff too. If it goes as far as FS equivalence and the ability for lorry drivers to move freely then its very easy to see how that resolves some of the brakes on us today.
Why cards to the chest? There are theories about not wanting to alienate leavers in former red wall seats they are trying to win back but I think the truth is more prosaic - the debate tends to be toxic and they know their heads will be plastered on the Mail and the Express with "TRYING TO DESTROY YOUR BREXIT" as the headline. They are being marshalled very carefully to "just win the election" and if they think there will be potential negative impacts from going down a particular route, they won't do it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't think I'd expect anything radical from labour on the EU following the next general election. But I'd expect a general softening of tone.
I think for a second term, Customs union might get debated, possibly even the ready heights of Single Market.
I think it all depends on what the conservatives do. I think they need to split up the hardcore leavers and the remaining remainers, but ultimately there's no mechanism for nearly dividing a party in two, and anyone who strikes out on their own will likely just fail straight away.0 -
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained0 -
You're correct. The argument at the time was that we were the second largest economy in the EU yet our pensions lagged far behind others. That's a reasonable comparison when we were one of the best performing EU economies.surrey_commuter said:
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained
It should have been scrapped with Brexit. Most of the leading Brexiteers were free trade small state evangelists and it just doesn't reconcile with that goal.
However I don't think the Tories could drop it because it would alienate such a large part of their voter base.
In a way it makes more sense as a Labour policy, but it does tie their hands, and does make it harder to sell the message of fiscal responsibility over everything they are trying to convey.
Even without Brexit, there comes a point where we'd need to say that sate pensions aren't lagging behind any more; and we might be lower down the list, but those above are having problems affording it.0 -
That's a bit like a crocodile selling the message that it's a vegetarian.super_davo said:
You're correct. The argument at the time was that we were the second largest economy in the EU yet our pensions lagged far behind others. That's a reasonable comparison when we were one of the best performing EU economies.surrey_commuter said:
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained
It should have been scrapped with Brexit. Most of the leading Brexiteers were free trade small state evangelists and it just doesn't reconcile with that goal.
However I don't think the Tories could drop it because it would alienate such a large part of their voter base.
In a way it makes more sense as a Labour policy, but it does tie their hands, and does make it harder to sell the message of fiscal responsibility over everything they are trying to convey.
Even without Brexit, there comes a point where we'd need to say that sate pensions aren't lagging behind any more; and we might be lower down the list, but those above are having problems affording it.
The triple lock is one of the larger decisions they could feasibly make on state expenditure and they have already committed to keeping it (although I recognise that the Tories have done exactly the same before anyone tries to claim their Friday smartarse points
)
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is it just possible that they are both wrong?Stevo_666 said:
That's a bit like a crocodile selling the message that it's a vegetarian.super_davo said:
You're correct. The argument at the time was that we were the second largest economy in the EU yet our pensions lagged far behind others. That's a reasonable comparison when we were one of the best performing EU economies.surrey_commuter said:
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained
It should have been scrapped with Brexit. Most of the leading Brexiteers were free trade small state evangelists and it just doesn't reconcile with that goal.
However I don't think the Tories could drop it because it would alienate such a large part of their voter base.
In a way it makes more sense as a Labour policy, but it does tie their hands, and does make it harder to sell the message of fiscal responsibility over everything they are trying to convey.
Even without Brexit, there comes a point where we'd need to say that sate pensions aren't lagging behind any more; and we might be lower down the list, but those above are having problems affording it.
The triple lock is one of the larger decisions they could feasibly make on state expenditure and they have already committed to keeping it (although I recognise that the Tories have done exactly the same before anyone tries to claim their Friday smartarse points )1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Haha, suggestion that Sue Gray's gardening leave before taking up her job with Starmer might have been reduced because of the Cabinet Office's claims and not providing evidence in a timely fashion. Own goal.
0 -
It certainly is.rjsterry said:
Is it just possible that they are both wrong?Stevo_666 said:
That's a bit like a crocodile selling the message that it's a vegetarian.super_davo said:
You're correct. The argument at the time was that we were the second largest economy in the EU yet our pensions lagged far behind others. That's a reasonable comparison when we were one of the best performing EU economies.surrey_commuter said:
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained
It should have been scrapped with Brexit. Most of the leading Brexiteers were free trade small state evangelists and it just doesn't reconcile with that goal.
However I don't think the Tories could drop it because it would alienate such a large part of their voter base.
In a way it makes more sense as a Labour policy, but it does tie their hands, and does make it harder to sell the message of fiscal responsibility over everything they are trying to convey.
Even without Brexit, there comes a point where we'd need to say that sate pensions aren't lagging behind any more; and we might be lower down the list, but those above are having problems affording it.
The triple lock is one of the larger decisions they could feasibly make on state expenditure and they have already committed to keeping it (although I recognise that the Tories have done exactly the same before anyone tries to claim their Friday smartarse points )"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Firstly I think they are both wrong. Ties hands unnecessarily, and universal state pension is a blunt instrument. Yes there are poor pensioners but there are a lot recieving it that with significant wealth and other incomes that really don't need the handout.rjsterry said:
Is it just possible that they are both wrong?Stevo_666 said:
That's a bit like a crocodile selling the message that it's a vegetarian.super_davo said:
You're correct. The argument at the time was that we were the second largest economy in the EU yet our pensions lagged far behind others. That's a reasonable comparison when we were one of the best performing EU economies.surrey_commuter said:
from memory the triplelock came in because there was an acceptance that the state pension was too low. Triple lock meanttht it would naturally increase over a period of time.Pross said:I'll never understand the need for the flat 2.5% element. To be honest, I don't really see the point in it being linked to anything other than inflation either as why is it relevant to the cost of living of a pensioner what is happening to wage rates?
Th solution is to have a debate about whether it is now at the right level so it just needs to be maintained
It should have been scrapped with Brexit. Most of the leading Brexiteers were free trade small state evangelists and it just doesn't reconcile with that goal.
However I don't think the Tories could drop it because it would alienate such a large part of their voter base.
In a way it makes more sense as a Labour policy, but it does tie their hands, and does make it harder to sell the message of fiscal responsibility over everything they are trying to convey.
Even without Brexit, there comes a point where we'd need to say that sate pensions aren't lagging behind any more; and we might be lower down the list, but those above are having problems affording it.
The triple lock is one of the larger decisions they could feasibly make on state expenditure and they have already committed to keeping it (although I recognise that the Tories have done exactly the same before anyone tries to claim their Friday smartarse points )
And secondly, it's not even a year since Trussonomics. That was a massive loosening of fiscal policy at a time of rising inflation, tightening monetary policy and high deficits. Absolutely textbook what not to do economic policy. And you're worried about Labour 😂0 -
Yes, obviously. Undoubtedly.
On the plus side, he did manage to avoid mentioning Corbyn.
0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
Apparently Labour now pledging to protect BTL mortgage holders, which sounds f*cking ludicrous.
I wish they'd stop trying to out-Tory Tories.0 -
If they support BTL mortgages, the world has gone insane.0
-
I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...0 -
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...0 -
Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.0 -
-
I’d argue it is still profitable but people have over leveraged themselves to get on the gravy train.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.
If you expect the rent to pay for all of the following…
Mortgage
Maintenance & insurances
An income
Uninhabited periods
Agents fees
Any legal fees around the property / tenant issues.
In addition to expecting the growth on the underlying asset. It’s a magic money tree you’re after. This is why rents are so stratospheric.
Zero sympathy for over leveraged landlords. They’re a part of the housing affordability problem.0 -
morstar said:
I’d argue it is still profitable but people have over leveraged themselves to get on the gravy train.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.
If you expect the rent to pay for all of the following…
Mortgage
Maintenance & insurances
An income
Uninhabited periods
Agents fees
Any legal fees around the property / tenant issues.
In addition to expecting the growth on the underlying asset. It’s a magic money tree you’re after. This is why rents are so stratospheric.
Zero sympathy for over leveraged landlords. They’re a part of the housing affordability problem.
Yes, I'm sure it can be a decent business if done well (and so it should be - we need a thriving rental market), but I think the chimera of easy money for no work (brought about by the prolonged period of low interest rates) brought many people in who'd not risk-assessed the business sufficiently. Letting those properties come back onto the market ought to help take the heat out of property prices, though a smaller rental market as a result won't help lower the cost of renting.0 -
I worked with a guy who got on the gravy train way back in the mist of time.morstar said:
I’d argue it is still profitable but people have over leveraged themselves to get on the gravy train.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.
If you expect the rent to pay for all of the following…
Mortgage
Maintenance & insurances
An income
Uninhabited periods
Agents fees
Any legal fees around the property / tenant issues.
In addition to expecting the growth on the underlying asset. It’s a magic money tree you’re after. This is why rents are so stratospheric.
Zero sympathy for over leveraged landlords. They’re a part of the housing affordability problem.
He reckoned you needed to be able to afford to run 4 BTL to break even on running costs (based on one being empty at any one point). He looked at the property value being the long term investment, not a running income.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If BTL is being run efficiently and they're not gouging renters, it should surely not really be worth the hassle to run one or two properties, but instead to have large firms with the right economies of scale to run them efficiently.0
-
Homes Under The Hammer made everyone think they could become property millionaires.rick_chasey said:If BTL is being run efficiently and they're not gouging renters, it should surely not really be worth the hassle to run one or two properties, but instead to have large firms with the right economies of scale to run them efficiently.
0 -
You definitely need a portfolio of properties to make it viable and i'd say 6 is the minimum as you should then be able to cope with one being empty at any time as leases end, and the property needs redecorating and reletting.pblakeney said:
I worked with a guy who got on the gravy train way back in the mist of time.morstar said:
I’d argue it is still profitable but people have over leveraged themselves to get on the gravy train.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.
If you expect the rent to pay for all of the following…
Mortgage
Maintenance & insurances
An income
Uninhabited periods
Agents fees
Any legal fees around the property / tenant issues.
In addition to expecting the growth on the underlying asset. It’s a magic money tree you’re after. This is why rents are so stratospheric.
Zero sympathy for over leveraged landlords. They’re a part of the housing affordability problem.
He reckoned you needed to be able to afford to run 4 BTL to break even on running costs (based on one being empty at any one point). He looked at the property value being the long term investment, not a running income.
Many of those with one or two properties really don't understand the risks they are taking. Only when they end up with the tenant from hell do they learn their lesson!
0 -
The ones I know are "accidental landlords" and they have always point blank refused to consider the potential downsides.Dorset_Boy said:
You definitely need a portfolio of properties to make it viable and i'd say 6 is the minimum as you should then be able to cope with one being empty at any time as leases end, and the property needs redecorating and reletting.pblakeney said:
I worked with a guy who got on the gravy train way back in the mist of time.morstar said:
I’d argue it is still profitable but people have over leveraged themselves to get on the gravy train.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
If I'm being generous, labour correctly identified that rising interest rates also present a danger to renters, who will potentially have to cope with rent increases from landlords. However, helping BTL Investors is hardly a great looksuper_davo said:I had to Google the story because it seemed completely out of character and what was said was Labour berating the exclusion of BTL mortgages from "the mortgage charter".
So no promises of government support; if it came to it the costs would come from banks letting existing borrowers have payment holidays & switch to interest only etc. if they can't meet repayments.
To me looks like a free kick at the government. Costs nothing, probably never have to do it themselves. Personally not a fan of all this "dark arts of politics stuff" because I would hope people are smart enough to see through it, but then again the Brexit vote...
The problem is that wherever you pump money in (if that's the solution taken), it rarely, if ever, actually goes to those people who need it most, as they are nearly always the people with the least power (hence why they need it most). Cuts to VAT go to the manufacturers/retailers, housing benefit goes to the landlords, energy bills help goes to the energy companies, and so on. The BTL business was one predicated on low interest rates and viewed as easy money, and now it's not profitable.
If you expect the rent to pay for all of the following…
Mortgage
Maintenance & insurances
An income
Uninhabited periods
Agents fees
Any legal fees around the property / tenant issues.
In addition to expecting the growth on the underlying asset. It’s a magic money tree you’re after. This is why rents are so stratospheric.
Zero sympathy for over leveraged landlords. They’re a part of the housing affordability problem.
He reckoned you needed to be able to afford to run 4 BTL to break even on running costs (based on one being empty at any one point). He looked at the property value being the long term investment, not a running income.
Many of those with one or two properties really don't understand the risks they are taking. Only when they end up with the tenant from hell do they learn their lesson!
On a similar note I saw a note that people are opting for SVR over fixes as they think rates will fall back and don't want to be stuck on a higher rate. That somebody thought they were clever enough to forecast rates lower in undr two years time is truly frightening.0 -
TBF they offered me a 5 year fixed in 2020 at 1.9% so they don't have a great track record in accurately calling rate moves anyway.surrey_commuter said:
On a similar note I saw a note that people are opting for SVR over fixes as they think rates will fall back and don't want to be stuck on a higher rate. That somebody thought they were clever enough to forecast rates lower in undr two years time is truly frightening.0 -
There are companies looking to enter the market - see the build to rent idea which is fashionable in the UK and replicates other countries. The problem is that it is not a concept that lends itself to large companies if the properties are spread out. It also needs a big chunk of cash and the residential market is famous for being irrational.rick_chasey said:If BTL is being run efficiently and they're not gouging renters, it should surely not really be worth the hassle to run one or two properties, but instead to have large firms with the right economies of scale to run them efficiently.
0 -
I'd guess with a more active interest rate market, SVR will become slightly more attractive anyway.0
